* Re: [Caml-list] void/unit in C calls
@ 2004-02-20 20:16 Lars Nilsson
2004-02-20 20:36 ` [Caml-list] " Jed Davis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Lars Nilsson @ 2004-02-20 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
>It makes a difference: you should always return Val_unit from
>unit-functions implemented in C. Otherwise you might find obscure
>things like:
>
> foo () <> ()
>
>Or worse... - somebody reported to me that he sometimes saw programs
>crash, though it isn't certain that this was the cause.
Does this indicate an error in the O'Caml manual, section 18.5.1, where
void foo(value v1, value v2, value v3)
{
CAMLparam3(v1, v2, v3);
CAMLreturn0;
}
is used, in addition to a paragraph preceeding it in the same section saying
"If your C function is a procedure you must insert CAMLreturn0 at the end"?
In fact, CAMLreturn0 existing at all seems to imply the fact that
unit-returning functions (from O'Caml's point of view) can be void in the C
implementation.
Lars
_________________________________________________________________
Say good-bye to spam, viruses and pop-ups with MSN Premium -- free trial
offer! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [Caml-list] Re: void/unit in C calls
2004-02-20 20:16 [Caml-list] void/unit in C calls Lars Nilsson
@ 2004-02-20 20:36 ` Jed Davis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jed Davis @ 2004-02-20 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1238 bytes --]
"Lars Nilsson" <lazarus13@hotmail.com> writes:
> Does this indicate an error in the O'Caml manual, section 18.5.1, where
>
> void foo(value v1, value v2, value v3)
> {
> CAMLparam3(v1, v2, v3);
>
> CAMLreturn0;
> }
>
> is used, in addition to a paragraph preceeding it in the same section
> saying "If your C function is a procedure you must insert CAMLreturn0
> at the end"? In fact, CAMLreturn0 existing at all seems to imply the
> fact that unit-returning functions (from O'Caml's point of view) can
> be void in the C implementation.
It doesn't say that foo() is meant to be the implementation of an
external in and of itself; in fact, the absence of a CAMLprim
indicates that it's not meant to be one. It's just that any function
that might set off a GC needs to declare its "value"s so they can be
updated if the referenced blocks are moved, and thus needs a matching
CAMLreturn.
--
[Jed Davis] A098 903E 9B9A DEF4 168F AA09 BF07 807E F336 59F9
<jdev@panix.com> 0xF33659F9
"But life wasn't yes-no, on-off. Life was shades of gray, and rainbows
not in the order of the spectrum." -- L. E. Modesitt, Jr., _Adiamante_
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 185 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-02-20 20:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-02-20 20:16 [Caml-list] void/unit in C calls Lars Nilsson
2004-02-20 20:36 ` [Caml-list] " Jed Davis
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox